Raising ID requirements endangers voter access (2 letters)

Overly burdensome ID requirements block eligible voters from participating without solving any real problem. Colorado’s County Clerks Association has testified that there are no known instances of voter fraud in Colorado in recent years. Although most Americans have government-issued photo ID, studies show that as many as 12 percent of eligible voters nationwide do not; the percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, and low-income voters. Many citizens find it hard to get such IDs, because the underlying documentation required is often difficult to come by.

Secretary-elect Scott Gessler’s interest in proof of citizenship laws is misguided and will cost the state much in terms of resources and unjustified barriers to the ballot box. As this issue is debated, proponents of these burdensome requirements must demonstrate the requirements are worth the harms they cause, a tough task given the lack of evidence of fraud.

Jenny Flanagan, Executive Director, Colorado Common Cause

This letter was published in the Nov. 25 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Efforts to require photo ID and proof of citizenship do nothing other than keep voters from engaging in our elections. In fact, Colorado is one of the most difficult states in which to obtain a photo ID.

There is a special project in Colorado funded by local foundations that has annually assisted about 3,900 people each year for the last three years. These individuals lack IDs and/or birth certificates and other documents needed to obtain picture IDs. Many more people who need such assistance often have to be turned away because the project lacks sufficient funding and staffing to serve them all. Many of these are elderly, disabled and/or homeless.

Voting is a sacred right in our country. Experience has shown that thousands of Coloradans would be pushed out of the voting process if these onerous requirements became law.

Nan Morehead, Centennial

This letter was published in the Nov. 25 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

And it is ONLY a “sacred right” when means are taken to insure that ONLY those who are eligible to vote actually do…. when means are taken to insure that voter fraud is eliminated….because if ANYONE can vote as often as they want to….that “sacred right” becomes worthless and meaningless.
———————-
“Colorado’s County Clerks Association has testified that there are no known instances of voter fraud in Colorado in recent years.'”

That is supposed to be reassuring? What part? The “in recent years” part? What does that mean? That KNOWN instances of VOTER FRAUD are KNOWN to have occured in years past?

I’m reminded of the story of asking the fox who is guarding the chicken coop if everything is okay.

What are these clerks supposed to say? That a problem is KNOWN to have occured years ago….that NOTHING has been done to solve it….but, that’s okay because everything is fine and dandy in the chicken coop?

Apparently our “sacred right” to vote is based too much on the honor system….and anyone who looks at the number of people in our jaiils and prisons KNOWS and UNDESTANDS this: The Honor System works ONLY among Honest People; it does NOT work for those who WANT to commit Crimes and Voter Fraud.

Anonymous

“Voting is a sacred right in our country.”

That is very true.

And it is ONLY a “sacred right” when means are taken to insure that ONLY those who are eligible to vote actually do…. when means are taken to insure that voter fraud is eliminated….because if ANYONE can vote as often as they want to….that “sacred right” becomes worthless and meaningless.
———————-
“Colorado’s County Clerks Association has testified that there are no known instances of voter fraud in Colorado in recent years.'”

That is supposed to be reassuring? What part? The “in recent years” part? What does that mean? That KNOWN instances of VOTER FRAUD are KNOWN to have occured in years past?

I’m reminded of the story of asking the fox who is guarding the chicken coop if everything is okay.

What are these clerks supposed to say? That a problem is KNOWN to have occured years ago….that NOTHING has been done to solve it….but, that’s okay because everything is fine and dandy in the chicken coop?

Apparently our “sacred right” to vote is based too much on the honor system….and anyone who looks at the number of people in our jaiils and prisons KNOWS and UNDESTANDS this: The Honor System works ONLY among Honest People; it does NOT work for those who WANT to commit Crimes and Voter Fraud.

Goodspkr

Common on folks, you I need a photo ID to buy liquor (and they even check it in Safeway). Quite frankly, requiring proof of who you are to vote seems to be a sensible thing to do.

I would imagine the same people calling for no photo IDs for voting would be upset if they didn’t require a photo ID to buy a gun.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Anonymous

Not only that, but its harder to get a library card than it is to register to vote. Voting is a sacred right in our country and it should be taken seriously. Shouldn’t we protect that right? Flying isn’t a right, but we have to have ID in order to fly. Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.

Goodspkr

Common on folks, you I need a photo ID to buy liquor (and they even check it in Safeway). Quite frankly, requiring proof of who you are to vote seems to be a sensible thing to do.

I would imagine the same people calling for no photo IDs for voting would be upset if they didn’t require a photo ID to buy a gun.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Anonymous

Not only that, but its harder to get a library card than it is to register to vote. Voting is a sacred right in our country and it should be taken seriously. Shouldn’t we protect that right? Flying isn’t a right, but we have to have ID in order to fly. Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.

Anonymous

Jenny, are you saying that minorities are incapable of finding the proper document in order to be able to vote? What an insult to the minorities. another thing, you do not verify why getting ahold of the proper documents is so hard. When I lived in Minnesota, I wanted to get a passport. I had to contact Porter Hospital in Denver and request a copy of my birth certificate. I got the certificate and now own a passport. It was inconvenient, but not difficult.

Anonymous

Jenny, are you saying that minorities are incapable of finding the proper document in order to be able to vote? What an insult to the minorities. another thing, you do not verify why getting ahold of the proper documents is so hard. When I lived in Minnesota, I wanted to get a passport. I had to contact Porter Hospital in Denver and request a copy of my birth certificate. I got the certificate and now own a passport. It was inconvenient, but not difficult.

Betty Mahaffey

Recently, I assisted a young man to get a Colorado I.D. It was not difficult at all. If I fly on an airplane, travel on a train, engage in every day commerce, such as banking and obtaining loans, I must show my I.D. Why shouldn’t I have to show I.D. to vote? This is a most important activity and every measure should be prevented to avoid voter fraud, and by requiring a citizen to show an I.D. is a reasonable way to avoid problems.

Betty Mahaffey

Recently, I assisted a young man to get a Colorado I.D. It was not difficult at all. If I fly on an airplane, travel on a train, engage in every day commerce, such as banking and obtaining loans, I must show my I.D. Why shouldn’t I have to show I.D. to vote? This is a most important activity and every measure should be prevented to avoid voter fraud, and by requiring a citizen to show an I.D. is a reasonable way to avoid problems.

David

It almost appears that the two original letter writers are attempting to protect a “legal” loophole which allows for undetected, or hard to detect voter fraud.

As for the elderly having problems obtaining such photo ID, they have to jump through larger hoops to get Social Security and Medicare, among other privileges of age. And by implying that minorities are somehow incapable of applying for and obtaining photo ID — well that just borders on a racist point of view which tends to hold minorities down under the “benevolence of self-anointed guardians” rather than letting them loose to excel on their own.

David

It almost appears that the two original letter writers are attempting to protect a “legal” loophole which allows for undetected, or hard to detect voter fraud.

As for the elderly having problems obtaining such photo ID, they have to jump through larger hoops to get Social Security and Medicare, among other privileges of age. And by implying that minorities are somehow incapable of applying for and obtaining photo ID — well that just borders on a racist point of view which tends to hold minorities down under the “benevolence of self-anointed guardians” rather than letting them loose to excel on their own.

anderson

The Sec of State’s interest in “proof of citizenship” laws is a solution in search of a problem, which the DP editors more or less admit.

Anonymous

It may be a solution looking for a problem, but wouldn’t it be better to be ahead just in case a problem arises?

anderson

No, because it will effectively disinfranchise some voters (U.S. citizens).

Anonymous

Are you addressing the idea that asking for ID, at all, will disenfranchise some voters or that I said it would be better to get ahead? Just in case, I will respond to both.

You, as usual, give no further content as to why you have an opinion. If you mean it will disenfranchise voters because they are minorities, you present the concept that they are too stupid and can’t figure it out? If you mean it will disenfranchise voters because they are immigrants who became naturalized citizens, you might be inferring that they don’t speak or read English well enough? Maybe you mean it will disenfranchise voters because they can’t acquire their birth certificate? None of the reasons are insurmountable and there are people in government positions who will help anyone caught in my suggested scenarios.

If you are responding to my suggestion that it would be helpful to get ahead, you need to explain your reasoning. in my mind, we are always playing catch-up. When we have a chance to head off a problem we, as good stewards, are obliged to do it.

anderson

The disinfranchisement (who and how) is perfectly addressed by the two letters that are the topic of this thread. Maybe you didn’t read them.

As for your argument that we “need to get ahead” of a hypothetical situation, no we don’t–unless we have reason to believe your hypothetical will occur. I see no reason to believe it will occur. Again, the problem is disinfranchisement.

anderson

The Sec of State’s interest in “proof of citizenship” laws is a solution in search of a problem, which the DP editors more or less admit.

Anonymous

It may be a solution looking for a problem, but wouldn’t it be better to be ahead just in case a problem arises?

anderson

No, because it will effectively disinfranchise some voters (U.S. citizens).

Anonymous

Are you addressing the idea that asking for ID, at all, will disenfranchise some voters or that I said it would be better to get ahead? Just in case, I will respond to both.

You, as usual, give no further content as to why you have an opinion. If you mean it will disenfranchise voters because they are minorities, you present the concept that they are too stupid and can’t figure it out? If you mean it will disenfranchise voters because they are immigrants who became naturalized citizens, you might be inferring that they don’t speak or read English well enough? Maybe you mean it will disenfranchise voters because they can’t acquire their birth certificate? None of the reasons are insurmountable and there are people in government positions who will help anyone caught in my suggested scenarios.

If you are responding to my suggestion that it would be helpful to get ahead, you need to explain your reasoning. in my mind, we are always playing catch-up. When we have a chance to head off a problem we, as good stewards, are obliged to do it.

anderson

The disinfranchisement (who and how) is perfectly addressed by the two letters that are the topic of this thread. Maybe you didn’t read them.

As for your argument that we “need to get ahead” of a hypothetical situation, no we don’t–unless we have reason to believe your hypothetical will occur. I see no reason to believe it will occur. Again, the problem is disinfranchisement.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...